More regime change from BushCo

Welcome to Team B [1], part, er … B [2]:

If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.

Hersch, who has been remarkably prescient on the administration’s Iran policy thus far, has noted that BushCo’s push to invade Iran has been in direct contrast with CIA reports assessing no credible threat [3] from Tehran.

Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, “I know what the President thinks,” about Iraq. “I know what I think. And we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.” He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. “The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. “And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

But of course, this administration has never let a little thing like facts get in the way of pursuing their regional ambitions. The latest? Regime change in Iran is critical to ensure victory in Iraq. But not to worry, the administration is leaving all options on the table. Where have we heard that before?